ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022
RiboReport - benchmarking tools for ribosome profiling-based identification of open reading frames in bacteria.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigation of the global translational response to oxidative stress in the model archaeonmSphere · 2025Article
- Complementary Ribo-seq approaches map the translatome and provide a small protein census in the foodborne pathogen Campylobacter jejuni.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The hidden bacterial microproteome.Molecular cell · 2025Article
- RIBOSS detects novel translational events by combining long- and short-read transcriptome and translatome profiling.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Uncovering the small proteome of Methanosarcina mazei using Ribo-seq and peptidomics under different nitrogen conditions.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A survey of experimental and computational identification of small proteins.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- A survey of experimental and computational identification of small proteins.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- The Cryptic Bacterial Microproteome.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Ribosome profiling reveals the fine-tuned response ofmSystems · 2023Article
- Exposing the small protein load of bacterial life.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- Small proteins in Gram-positive bacteria.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2023Article
- What Can Ribo-Seq, Immunopeptidomics, and Proteomics Tell Us About the Noncanonical Proteome?Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2023Article
- IRSOM2: a web server for predicting bifunctional RNAs.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- What can Ribo-seq and proteomics tell us about the non-canonical proteome?bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Unraveling the small proteome of the plant symbiontmicroLife · 2023Article
- Revealing the small proteome ofmicroLife · 2023Article
- Hidden in plain sight: challenges in proteomics detection of small ORF-encoded polypeptides.microLife · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small proteins encoded by short open reading frames (ORFs) with 50 codons or fewer are emerging as an important class of cellular macromolecules in diverse organisms. However, they often evade detection by proteomics or in silico methods. Ribosome profiling (Ribo-seq) has revealed widespread translation in genomic regions previously thought to be non-coding, driving the development of ORF detection tools using Ribo-seq data. However, only a handful of tools have been designed for bacteria, and these have not yet been systematically compared. Here, we aimed to identify tools that use Ribo-seq data to correctly determine the translational status of annotated bacterial ORFs and also discover novel translated regions with high sensitivity. To this end, we generated a large set of annotated ORFs from four diverse bacterial organisms, manually labeled for their translation status based on Ribo-seq data, which are available for future benchmarking studies. This set was used to investigate the predictive performance of seven Ribo-seq-based ORF detection tools (REPARATION_blast, DeepRibo, Ribo-TISH, PRICE, smORFer, ribotricer and SPECtre), as well as IRSOM, which uses coding potential and RNA-seq coverage only. DeepRibo and REPARATION_blast robustly predicted translated ORFs, including sORFs, with no significant difference for ORFs in close proximity to other genes versus stand-alone genes. However, no tool predicted a set of novel, experimentally verified sORFs with high sensitivity. Start codon predictions with smORFer show the value of initiation site profiling data to further improve the sensitivity of ORF prediction tools in bacteria. Overall, we find that bacterial tools perform well for sORF detection, although there is potential for improving their performance, applicability, usability and reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.